Its like 12 sentences long.
What state laws are able to be disregarded within the confines of a gun show? I don’t live in Cali, so I am genuinely interested. Where I live, Iowa, a person who buys a gun at a gun show, from a licensed dealer, needs to go through the same background checks and paperwork that they would had they purchased that gun at a dealer’s store.
Once again, in Iowa, if I want to buy a gun from a private seller, I do not have to go through any hoops, paperwork or background checks. The same goes if that private seller is located within a gun show. Consistency.
Do State and Federal Firearm laws cease to apply in California once one enters a gunshow, or did I read your post wrong?
I second the request for some info on the gun show loophole mentioned by Hostile Dialect.
No, I can’t. The last sentence of my post was made recklessly. Beyond some recent examples, I cannot back up my claim that “most” front page gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. Sorry.
Then cutting and pasting half couldn’t be that hard, could it? 
Just click on the freakin’ link! Talk about not hard.
It’s not nice to c/p articles into this board, and the article belongs to the copyright holder.
The thread title tells you what the article is about.
So, what do you think. Is the California policy a good one or not?
I don’t like to click on mystery links.
Nor does a title of " Gun grabbing in California?" really tell what the NEWS article is about.
And Fair Use (of a small quote) is not only legal, but ethical. In fact we do it here all the time.
If you can’t be bothered to post a precis or a quote then clearly you don’t really care about the issue.
Life NRA member here too. What if these so-called “convicted felons” were white collar crimes or minor drug convictions and don’t really affect gun ownership?
I don’t know… I don’t like the government pushing their weight in this area. Grubby Gun-grabbing bastrds. What are they gonna do with all those guns? I want one.
The title asks what the article is about. But I’m not going to argue about that which is not at issue here.
If you’re not interested in the OP, and are afraid to click on the link, why are you here?
I really don’t understand your hostility.
But they’re again breaking the law by having guns. Everyone is free to break any law they wish, but then they have to deal with the consequences.
Maybe if they were to try to have the laws changed to be more specific about what kind of felony?
They should destroy the guns because we shouldn’t benefit from anyone’s crime. Make plowshares out of them, I say.
Then it might be time for you to contact your California state legislator and talk about getting the law changed.
Oh, wait.
I dunno. For the guns that are legal in California, why not auction them off or give them to police? California needs all the income it can get, seems to me.
I’m not sure if there’s a parallel California statute, but it’s a federal law that prohibits felons from owning firearms.
My bad. Sorry, JohnnieEnigma.
The problem (and I will admit to painting with broad strokes here) is that you have a few unscrupulous dealers and middle men who are willing to purchase large volumes of weapons and then re-sell to criminals. As is often the case its a few bad apples ruining the bunch.
I don’t think the NRA gets off without some blame though. I own 2 guns both purchased legally in Texas. I walked into a store with my wife who is in the military and we walked out with 2 weapons 15 minutes later. No background check required. That, while convenient was WAY too easy. The NRA has vigorously lobbied politicians to the point where any Republican seeking office has jump on board and push through legislation making it ever easier to get a weapon. Its really not necessary. I want to continue to have the right to have a weapon but I do not want myself or anyone else for that matter, to have the right to purchase 50 or 60 weapons. That’s (in the words of Larry the Cable Guy) just simple common sense . Having common sense limits on the number of weapons you can purchase in a 12 month period is not going to turn the US into a commie-red,liberal tree hugging dictatorship, but it might stop someone from arming your local drug dealer and his boys.
Twenty-some years ago, when the anti-gun hysteria was really ramping up, Time had an article on gun violence. (Time, as I recall, was known as an anti-gun publication.) I crunched the numbers in their article (FBI statistics, and whatnot) and discovered that 99.987% of the firearms in this country (according to the figures Time published) are not used illegally. ‘Used illegally’ does not mean ‘only used to shoot someone’, but includes guns that were merely brandished or found in the possession of a criminal. Of course the numbers change every years and it’s been over two decades; but I’d be surprised if more than a fraction of a percent of the guns in the U.S. are used illegally today.
This doesn’t answer mangeorge’s query, but I found it interesting at the time.
As I’ve illustrated above, a very small percentage of guns are used illegally. But people who don’t know about guns, or who are afraid of them, or whatever motivates them, seem to want zero percent illegal gun usage. They want guns to disappear. People who aren’t extremists may think, on an emotional level, that ‘Guns are bad, m’kay?’. There just isn’t any public support for this sort of thing. If one of the seized guns makes it back into the hands of a criminal – whether he uses it or not – the confiscating/selling agency will be crucified.
There’s a lot of money in confiscated guns. It makes sense to me to dispose of them to law-abiding people who will pay for them, rather than shred them or drop them in the ocean. The sad thing is that criminals will use whatever they can get. Who knows how many collectible guns are seized and destroyed? A Taurus or a Glock, or any number of guns I don’t really care about. But I’ve seen photos of rare and valuable guns that were about to be destroyed (and subsequently were), and it’s a shame to see that happen to them.
Something us gun owners should realize is that anti-gun hysteria ramped up in response to accelerating gun violence, not the other way around.
In other words, people didn’t start shooting each other at an increasing rate due to the call for more gun regulation.
When the ordinary person who might feel nervous about all the shooting, and there is a lot of shooting, see the authorities seemingly doing something about it they tend to feel a little more comfortable about legal and responsible ownership.
Surely there is some method to save truly rare firearms from the shredder and do away with the others. The other illegaly owned and legaly confiscated ones, that is.
It was the '80s before I could legally buy a handgun, so that’s when I started paying attention to guns and laws. But it seemed to me that they hysteria really took off at that time. I don’t remember any high-profile cases at the time (certainly there was earlier violence – the Kennedys, MLK, Charles Whitman…) but I do remember that that was the time Miami Vice came out. IIRC most gun violence was carried out with handguns, usually revolvers. But Miami Vice depicted the bad guys running around with sub-machineguns. And that’s when I started hearing about laws to ban ‘assault rifles’.
Well, you ask about a Gun grab and want us to accept that there is such a thing but seem strangely reluctant to give us a quote. So, I am asking you for a cite, and you seem unable to give a decent cite. Why is that? If the cite is safe, why not end this by clicking and providing us with a quote? Or a prcis? Or are you unable to rephase the cite in your own words?
:rolleyes:
DeDeth,
[Quote=
1000 Gun Owners Targeted in State Crackdown]
LOS ANGELES, Calif. (KCBS/AP) – Authorities have seized more than 540 guns in recent weeks as part of a statewide crackdown on convicted felons and others banned from owning firearms, California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced Monday.
[…]
While owners had purchased the guns legally, they were later barred from owning their weapons due to convictions for felonies and violent or firearms-related misdemeanors. Others involved in domestic violence incidents or found to be mentally ill typically must relinquish their guns as well.
[…]
The crackdown is aimed at what authorities say are the most dangerous individuals. There are about 9,000 others listed in the database, which could eventually include as many as 60,000 people, officials said.
[/QUOTE]
In short: They’re launching the campaign against easy targets, people no on is likely to step up and defend. There are tens of thousands of other people that would also qualify for this treatment. After they’ve given the public a chance to become accustomed to the concept, they’ll go after the more sympathetic targets.